Chris Wallace spanks Rush Feingold over the US attorneys

[ProfJohn]

The transcript pretty much speaks for itself.
Democrats have been carrying on for months over this US attorney issues and have 6 months, 8,500 pages of documents and 14 witnesses they still NO hard evidence of any laws being broke.

I wish I had video of this because Feingold?s answer sounds pretty pathetic.
LINK

WALLACE: Meanwhile, this week a House committee held two White House aides in contempt, and a Senate committee issued a subpoena for Karl Rove to testify, all in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Senator, so far, Congress has been investigating this issue all year. You've heard from 14 witnesses. You've received 8,500 pages of documents.

Can you point to a single smoking gun, any hard evidence, that the White House has done anything illegal?

FEINGOLD: I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance program that we've been talking about...

WALLACE: No, no, I'm talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.

FEINGOLD: Well, I believe they probably have. I can't give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there's been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.

And look. My view is that our first priority is getting us out of Iraq. We have had successes in terms of raising the minimum wage. We are going to pass a major lobbying and ethics bill. We've passed an energy bill. We've got the pay-go rule back in place. This is what we spent six months on.

But now we have started some accountability. This was a week of accountability ? a censure resolution proposal that I made, the call for the special counsel, the issuing of contempt orders.

This administration is trying to prevent us from learning the facts about these situations that you've asked me about. Until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal?

That's something that we as members of Congress have an obligation to find out, not just a question of whether we should do it or shouldn't do it. We need to ask these questions or we're not doing our job.

WALLACE: But you know, I think the question is, is this really going anywhere? Is this substantive oversight or is this political theater?

I mean, the point is on the U.S. attorneys which we're talking about, six-month, seven-month investigation, 8,500 pages of documents, 14 witnesses, and you say yourself as a member of Senate Judiciary you haven't found any hard evidence that the White House has broken the law.

FEINGOLD: Well, I happen to think they probably did break the law here, but I don't think the investigation is over, and...

WALLACE: But do you have any evidence of that?

FEINGOLD: ... until we ? well, that's why we're asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.

We haven't had access to the evidence. How are you supposed to examine it when you can't look at it?

Two chances to mention any proof of a crime and the best Feingold can do is ask for more investigations and hearings.
Also if you go to the link you will learn that it is VERY likely that Gonzales did not perjure himself when he spoke about the NSA program in the hospital.

 

[Balt]

This sums it up better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcyK5DMUCug

No one is even willing to defend Gonzales anymore. He's garbage.

 

[ProfJohn]

Newt for President!!!!!

I wanna see him debate Hillary on ANY issue.

BTW I like his idea, let's find some well respected lawyer and make him DA.
Maybe Bush and the Democrats can cut a deal on this so it can be done without turning it into a circus.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Dimocrats don't need evidence..indeed, the facts are irrelevant...it's all about how they feel....
they feel what ever Bush does is wrong...
so firing some lawyers (who serve at the pleasure of the President) is O.K. when Clintoon does it (in fact he fired them all),
but when Bush fires a handful, it must be sinister...Rove the puppet master is trying to hid something...Gonzales has made some unholy pact with Herr Hitler/Bush and must be exposed....

yep

it's how they feel..

 

[umbrella39]

SSDD.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Newt for President!!!!!

I wanna see him debate Hillary on ANY issue.

BTW I like his idea, let's find some well respected lawyer and make him DA.
Maybe Bush and the Democrats can cut a deal on this so it can be done without turning it into a circus.

Newt would be great. I can see the ad now:

Who pressed his wife in the hospital for a divorce while she was being treated for cancer...?

Newt.

charming.....

 

[daveymark]

rofl, feingold had his ass handed to him. too funny.

such zeal, such vitriol! and for what...

 

[Jaskalas]

We repeatedly witness that being accused is in and of itself a criminal status punishable by jail. Personally, the accusers should be brought to justice, for wasting so much of our time.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
We repeatedly witness that being accused is in and of itself a criminal status punishable by jail. Personally, the accusers should be brought to justice, for wasting so much of our time.

Should the same standard be applied toward Ken Starr and the rest of the Repubs who spent an estimated $70 million trying to pin something on Clinton besides a blow-job from a fat-ugly Jewish girl and then lying to try to cover his ass?
How many years did the US Congress puff and blow smoke about Clinton, yet in reality, they never did find any actual CRIME?
(yes, he lied under oath...about something that was no one elses business in the first place.)

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The transcript pretty much speaks for itself.
Democrats have been carrying on for months over this US attorney issues and have 6 months, 8,500 pages of documents and 14 witnesses they still NO hard evidence of any laws being broke.

I wish I had video of this because Feingold?s answer sounds pretty pathetic.
LINK

WALLACE: Meanwhile, this week a House committee held two White House aides in contempt, and a Senate committee issued a subpoena for Karl Rove to testify, all in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Senator, so far, Congress has been investigating this issue all year. You've heard from 14 witnesses. You've received 8,500 pages of documents.

Can you point to a single smoking gun, any hard evidence, that the White House has done anything illegal?

FEINGOLD: I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance program that we've been talking about...

WALLACE: No, no, I'm talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.

FEINGOLD: Well, I believe they probably have. I can't give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there's been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.

And look. My view is that our first priority is getting us out of Iraq. We have had successes in terms of raising the minimum wage. We are going to pass a major lobbying and ethics bill. We've passed an energy bill. We've got the pay-go rule back in place. This is what we spent six months on.

But now we have started some accountability. This was a week of accountability ? a censure resolution proposal that I made, the call for the special counsel, the issuing of contempt orders.

This administration is trying to prevent us from learning the facts about these situations that you've asked me about. Until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal?

That's something that we as members of Congress have an obligation to find out, not just a question of whether we should do it or shouldn't do it. We need to ask these questions or we're not doing our job.

WALLACE: But you know, I think the question is, is this really going anywhere? Is this substantive oversight or is this political theater?

I mean, the point is on the U.S. attorneys which we're talking about, six-month, seven-month investigation, 8,500 pages of documents, 14 witnesses, and you say yourself as a member of Senate Judiciary you haven't found any hard evidence that the White House has broken the law.

FEINGOLD: Well, I happen to think they probably did break the law here, but I don't think the investigation is over, and...

WALLACE: But do you have any evidence of that?

FEINGOLD: ... until we ? well, that's why we're asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.

We haven't had access to the evidence. How are you supposed to examine it when you can't look at it?

Two chances to mention any proof of a crime and the best Feingold can do is ask for more investigations and hearings.
Also if you go to the link you will learn that it is VERY likely that Gonzales did not perjure himself when he spoke about the NSA program in the hospital.

Cart before the horse reasoning? If they had positive proof of a crime, why investigate ? Why interview witnesses? Why avoid giving testimony by executive privilege if they are not guilty?

 

[senseamp]

Oh, so the standard for US Attorneys is if it's illegal? How about being ethical? Is it ethical to put pressure on attorneys to do political prosecutions using taxpayer paid resources?
Republicans (and by extension Fox News) think that there should only be congressional oversight if a crime has been committed? They must be confusing Congress with a grand jury.

 

[Siddhartha]

I am glad that Congress is looking into this. The Jusitice department being used to further political objectives is a serious issue.

 

[maluckey]

(yes, he lied under oath...about something that was no one elses business in the first place.)

So Scooter Libby was innocent too? Not according to Democrats who want it OK for one but not the other. If you remember, Clinton was guilty of more than one count of perjury in his career. He is no longer practicing law in Arkansas for a perjury charge that even he can't dispute.

 

[Thump553]

If you think PJ is correct than the government (including the criminal section) should not have any subpeona or other compulsory process available at all-for if the government can't prove it's case IN ADVANCE, under PJ's logic, then they have no right, duty or responsibility to investigate it.

Too bad your rationale wasn't followed in all the endless investigations of President Clinton and the ultimate politically motivated impeachment-we would have saved millions of dollars and wasted far less time.


Typical PJ hopelessly biased post (as shown by his slip of using "Rush" instead of the correct first name for Senator Feingold).

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Newt for President!!!!!

I wanna see him debate Hillary on ANY issue.

BTW I like his idea, let's find some well respected lawyer and make him DA.
Maybe Bush and the Democrats can cut a deal on this so it can be done without turning it into a circus.

Newt would be great. I can see the ad now:

Who pressed his wife in the hospital for a divorce while she was being treated for cancer...?

Newt.

charming.....

Not to mention the affair he was having while going after Bill/Monica. Yeah Newt, bring it on.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Thump553
If you think PJ is correct than the government (including the criminal section) should not have any subpeona or other compulsory process available at all-for if the government can't prove it's case IN ADVANCE, under PJ's logic, then they have no right, duty or responsibility to investigate it.

Too bad your rationale wasn't followed in all the endless investigations of President Clinton and the ultimate politically motivated impeachment-we would have saved millions of dollars and wasted far less time.


Typical PJ hopelessly biased post (as shown by his slip of using "Rush" instead of the correct first name for Senator Feingold).

These kinds of logical posts fall on deaf ears I am affraid, Thump. They are so blinded by hate that they can't see past their own little agendas.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Thump553
If you think PJ is correct than the government (including the criminal section) should not have any subpeona or other compulsory process available at all-for if the government can't prove it's case IN ADVANCE, under PJ's logic, then they have no right, duty or responsibility to investigate it.

Too bad your rationale wasn't followed in all the endless investigations of President Clinton and the ultimate politically motivated impeachment-we would have saved millions of dollars and wasted far less time.


Typical PJ hopelessly biased post (as shown by his slip of using "Rush" instead of the correct first name for Senator Feingold).

These kinds of logical posts fall on deaf ears I am affraid, Thump. They are so blinded by hate that they can't see past their own little agendas.

It's more then just hate, it's hate inseperatly intertwined with greed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gonzales opened this whole can of worms by slandering the fired USA's, claiming under oath that the firings were performance based rather than purely political. Lying to Congress is a crime in and of itself, regardless if the incidents being lied about are perfectly legal or not. Therein lies the rub for the Admin's fanbois...

Some of Gonzales' other testimony has already been contradicted by other DoJ witnesses, as well, notably Goodling and Mueller, not to mention that engaging in malicious prosecution of one's opponents and interfering in the rightful investigation of one's cronies is also illegal. The Admin's conduct in that regard can't even pass the sniff test, which is why Congress has every reason to investigate further.

Federal law also requires all whitehouse email to go through internal channels, for record keeping purposes, something that Rove, for example, clearly has not done. When congress subpoenaed them from the RNC servers, why shucks, those emails are just gone...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Thump553
If you think PJ is correct than the government (including the criminal section) should not have any subpeona or other compulsory process available at all-for if the government can't prove it's case IN ADVANCE, under PJ's logic, then they have no right, duty or responsibility to investigate it.

Too bad your rationale wasn't followed in all the endless investigations of President Clinton and the ultimate politically motivated impeachment-we would have saved millions of dollars and wasted far less time.


Typical PJ hopelessly biased post (as shown by his slip of using "Rush" instead of the correct first name for Senator Feingold).

Indeed, that's why it's called an investigation...it's not like anybody is being sent to jail without a trial or anything. Perhaps someone should send PJ a dictionary.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Dimocrats don't need evidence..indeed, the facts are irrelevant...it's all about how they feel....
they feel what ever Bush does is wrong...
so firing some lawyers (who serve at the pleasure of the President) is O.K. when Clintoon does it (in fact he fired them all),
but when Bush fires a handful, it must be sinister...Rove the puppet master is trying to hid something...Gonzales has made some unholy pact with Herr Hitler/Bush and must be exposed....

yep

it's how they feel..

Clinton fired them because that's typically what incoming Presidents do. In fact, Bush did the exact same thing when he got into office. But Bush has been in office for years, NOW he fired them for a different reason all together.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The transcript pretty much speaks for itself.
Democrats have been carrying on for months over this US attorney issues and have 6 months, 8,500 pages of documents and 14 witnesses they still NO hard evidence of any laws being broke.

I wish I had video of this because Feingold?s answer sounds pretty pathetic.
LINK

WALLACE: Meanwhile, this week a House committee held two White House aides in contempt, and a Senate committee issued a subpoena for Karl Rove to testify, all in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Senator, so far, Congress has been investigating this issue all year. You've heard from 14 witnesses. You've received 8,500 pages of documents.

Can you point to a single smoking gun, any hard evidence, that the White House has done anything illegal?

FEINGOLD: I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance program that we've been talking about...

WALLACE: No, no, I'm talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.

FEINGOLD: Well, I believe they probably have. I can't give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there's been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.

And look. My view is that our first priority is getting us out of Iraq. We have had successes in terms of raising the minimum wage. We are going to pass a major lobbying and ethics bill. We've passed an energy bill. We've got the pay-go rule back in place. This is what we spent six months on.

But now we have started some accountability. This was a week of accountability ? a censure resolution proposal that I made, the call for the special counsel, the issuing of contempt orders.

This administration is trying to prevent us from learning the facts about these situations that you've asked me about. Until we can learn the facts, how do we know whether they have committed anything illegal?

That's something that we as members of Congress have an obligation to find out, not just a question of whether we should do it or shouldn't do it. We need to ask these questions or we're not doing our job.

WALLACE: But you know, I think the question is, is this really going anywhere? Is this substantive oversight or is this political theater?

I mean, the point is on the U.S. attorneys which we're talking about, six-month, seven-month investigation, 8,500 pages of documents, 14 witnesses, and you say yourself as a member of Senate Judiciary you haven't found any hard evidence that the White House has broken the law.

FEINGOLD: Well, I happen to think they probably did break the law here, but I don't think the investigation is over, and...

WALLACE: But do you have any evidence of that?

FEINGOLD: ... until we ? well, that's why we're asking for people like Karl Rove and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.

We haven't had access to the evidence. How are you supposed to examine it when you can't look at it?

Two chances to mention any proof of a crime and the best Feingold can do is ask for more investigations and hearings.
Also if you go to the link you will learn that it is VERY likely that Gonzales did not perjure himself when he spoke about the NSA program in the hospital.

So, when you have a murder case you aren't actually supposed to investigate it. You're supposed to prove guilt by sitting on your arse thinking of ways he could be guilty and hoping the smoking gun falls from the sky to convict him. That's a great way of making a justice system work.

 

[Lemon law]

This entire post is a total crock. What we have here is the assertion that one incredibly partisan personality can spank another partisan personality. The spanking is always in the eye of the beholder.

And this thread cannot hide the facts that congress will continue to investigate the attorney firings and will keep trying to get to the bottom of the matter. And right now much can be said regarding the pro and cons of the issue. But the one thing that can be said is that the White House cannot make a case that that there is nothing at all motivating the inquiries and that there is not a serious and possibly criminal matter being investigated. And that Gonzales has done a poor job of presenting the case that he is honest and unbiased to a point of actionable perjury.

In other words, this thread will generate heat and not light, create a warm and fuzzy glow in some GOP partisans, give the other side some hot flashes, AND MEANWHILE THE US ATTORNEY FIRINGS INVESTIGATIONS WILL SERENELY GO ON. And this thread will not even manage to SHED AN IOTA OF ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THE FACTS DRIVING THE INVESTIGATION.

What a waste of inconvenienced electrons. But they made that same there is nothing there case about Watergate also. It did not stop the investigation even though thousands of people spanked thousand of other people will brilliant words of wit before all the facts were in.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Dimocrats don't need evidence..indeed, the facts are irrelevant...it's all about how they feel....
they feel what ever Bush does is wrong...
so firing some lawyers (who serve at the pleasure of the President) is O.K. when Clintoon does it (in fact he fired them all),
but when Bush fires a handful, it must be sinister...Rove the puppet master is trying to hid something...Gonzales has made some unholy pact with Herr Hitler/Bush and must be exposed....

yep

it's how they feel..

Clinton fired them because that's typically what incoming Presidents do. In fact, Bush did the exact same thing when he got into office. But Bush has been in office for years, NOW he fired them for a different reason all together.

You are trying to reason logically with somebody who is reacting irrationally to how he feels. His self contempt for his own irrationality he projects onto others. I wish you luck with your reasoned approach but my feelings tell me you won't get anywhere. As Shakespeare noted 400 years ago: "A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." heartsurgeon has the hubris required to compartmentalize two different realities, the fiction that he is superior in reason while in fact in the grip of passion.

 

[1EZduzit]

A lie does not consist in the indirect position of words, but in the desire and intention, by false speaking, to deceive and injure your neighbour.
Jonathan Swift

 

[Jhhnn]

Every once in awhile, Moonbeam gets to the heart of things in a way that the rest of us can't quite articulate-

You are trying to reason logically with somebody who is reacting irrationally to how he feels. His self contempt for his own irrationality he projects onto others. I wish you luck with your reasoned approach but my feelings tell me you won't get anywhere. As Shakespeare noted 400 years ago: "A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." heartsurgeon has the hubris required to compartmentalize two different realities, the fiction that he is superior in reason while in fact in the grip of passion.

Thank you.